Killzone 2 is no doubt an AAA title and a must have for all (new) playstation 3 owners. But it's no better than halo 3. Because halo 3 has higher ratings (and more sales).

Can someone please explain why this is?

And please no comments like "because killzone 2 sucks" or "because halo 3 is more fun and  BETTER than killzone 2". These kinds of comments will be ignored.

looking at Vgchartz score

for Halo: http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=6964&region=All

vs

Kz2: http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=12253&region=All

Because Halo 3 came out earlier and so did CoD 4.

They were like the first top games (Ofcourse theres others :P) But they kinda marked the beginning of the next generation.

Killzone 2 came two years later so if we actually did a review based on today then the ratings would probably be diffrent. (Or atleast thats how I see it My opinion no flaming xD).

simply put: reviewers preferred halo 3. so did consumers, apparently.

there's nothing wrong with preferring one game over another. both are AAA titles that everyone should try. however, it seems people had more fun playing halo 3 (not saying it's a better game).

Halo 3 has more sales because it appeals more in style (nice and open colors) and access (simple to learn and master) to the masses.

Halo 3 ranks better because it's part 3 of a more popuplar franchise. They always rate higher. Remember the 10's for GT4.

uhhh....I think the sales part has more to do with the brand name.

Tx109,

But doesn't that make them biased to think that halo 3 is the better game for the simple fact that killzone 2 is a playstation 3 exclusive?

^ This,   plus it got some bad reviews from biased sites like this

http://www.gamestyle.net/articles/1670/Killzone_2/

A brand is only strong if it reaches out to a wide audience, so Halo is a strong brand because it appeals to a lot of people. It's total style is designed for it.

It's sad.